After years of talk, S.C. rail dispute to the courts

NORTH CHARLESTON — With a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag flying in front of City Hall, North Charleston has sued the state of South Carolina in both state and federal court in its ongoing dispute over a rail yard to serve a new $525 million port terminal.

Still, top officials of the state and the city say they are hopeful something can be worked out before a prolonged and expensive court fight.

“I’m not confident it will happen, but I’m hopeful it will happen,” Mayor Keith Summey said this week. “We are very supportive of industry and very supportive of growth. But what the state is asking is that one community pay the whole price tag of growth and we think that’s inappropriate.”

“I think most of the issues around this can be resolved,” said Commerce Secretary Bobby Hitt. “The one fundamental disagreement we have is the location of the rail yard.”

That’s been the ongoing disagreement for several years as the State Ports Authority builds a new terminal at the old Charleston Navy Base.

During the 1990s, public opposition scuttled State Port Authority plans to build a $1.2 billion Global Gateway terminal on nearby Daniel Island.

State lawmakers then directed the authority to build a 300-acre terminal at the old Charleston Naval Base. There will be no direct rail link to the terminal.

The city has proposed an intermodal rail yard be build on a vacant industrial tract south of the old base where containers could be moved for loading on trains.

But the state says the best location is on land to the north of the terminal near an area North Charleston has been redeveloping. The state has condemned land owned by both North Charleston and Clemson University, which is building a wind turbine testing facility nearby.

With no resolution in sight, the flag went up and the court papers were served.

The lawsuit alleges the state’s proposed location for the rail yard violates a memorandum of agreement signed almost a decade ago that port activity would remain on the south end of the base.

The state plan envisions building new track and having Norfolk Southern reach the terminal from the north end of the base while CSX, the other railroad serving the area, would have access from the south.

The city contends new rail lines with trains rumbling to the north would harm its urban renewal efforts of the past decade, making its multi-million waterfront park less desireable and affecting millions invested in neighborhoods nearby.

Trains, perhaps as long as a mile, could block roads leading to redeveloped areas, said Ray Anderson, a special assistant to Summey.

Hitt said the state’s position is that the alternative site to the south of the old base does not grant equal access to both railroads and is closer to an existing CSX yard.

“It gives an operating advantage to one railroad over the other,” he said. “The state of South Carolina can’t be getting into the business of picking winners and losers. You can’t be spending millions of dollars to create a facility that would give an advantage to one company over another company.”

Anderson disagrees with the analysis and says the southern site can be accessible to both lines.

Summey said this week that, while in the past he had opposed all trains moving out the north end of the base, said one train a day “could be workable if they do the right thing for noise barriers and realign that rail line.”

The mayor said “life is a compromise, we’re willing to work with them.”

But he said that putting a rail yard near the Clemson site could affect spin off businesses expected to locate there when the wind turbine project is operating.

“It would kill anything we are trying to do with the Clemson project — create up to 10,000 or 20,000 jobs over a 10-year period which is far more than is going to be created by a rail yard,” he said.

Norfolk Southern spokesman Robin Chapman said he expected the terminal would mean one additional train a day to the one that now moves out the north end of the base.

CSX is willing to sit down and try to work out a solution, said railroad spokeswoman Carla Groleau.

“We look forward to a speedy resolution so that South Carolina can benefit from a more competitive port,” she said.

Cathy Sams of Clemson said the university had no comment on the lawsuits.

Byron Miller of the State Ports Authority said the authority is fully complying with the memorandum of agreement from 2002.

“While the Ports Authority is not involved in either rail plan, we believe industries using rail would benefit from a dual-access, regional rail solution that enjoys the support of both railroads,” he said.